Perseteruan antara Apple dan Samsung
tampaknya akan kembali memanas di pengadilan. Apple diketahui telah meminta pengadilan distrik AS
untuk memasukkan smartphone Samsung Galaxy S4 dalam daftar tuntutan.
Indonesia.com - Perseteruan antara Apple dan Samsung tampaknya akan kembali memanas di
pengadilan. Apple diketahui telah meminta pengadilan distrik AS untuk memasukkan
smartphone Samsung Galaxy S4 dalam daftar tuntutan.
menganalisis Galaxy S4 dan akhirnya memutuskan untuk masuk ke daftar produk yang melanggar hak
paten, seperti dikutip dari GSMArena, Jumat (17/5/2013).
dalam daftar tersebut, Apple sudah memiliki 22 nama produk yang dianggap melanggar hak paten
mereka. Apabila ingin mendaftarkan produk Galaxy S4 ke daftar "hitam" ini, Apple
setidaknya harus "membuang" sebuah produk lain dari kasus tersebut.
Samsung sebenarnya juga memiliki daftar berisikan 22 produk Apple yang dianggap melanggar
Meski begitu, saat menjelang persidangan nanti, kedua perusahaan
tersebut harus mengurangi jumlah produk dalam daftar menjadi masing-masing 10 perangkat.
Keduanya juga harus mengurangi jumlah paten yang dituntut menjadi lima perangkat.
Samsung Galaxy S4 sendiri saat ini telah menjadi mesin uang bagi Samsung. Produk ini
mendapatkan respon yang sangat positif dari pasaran.
Tidak sampai sebulan,
perangkat tersebut sudah laku 6 juta unit. Samsung Galaxy S4 juga telah mencetak rekor perangkat
Android high-end dengan waktu penjualan tercepat, yaitu 4 juta perangkat hanya dalam
waktu 5 hari.
Berikut daftar produk Samsung yang dituntut oleh Apple.
- Captivate Glide
- Conquer 4G
- Exhibit II
- Galaxy Nexus
- Galaxy Note
- Galaxy Note 10.1
- Galaxy Player 4.0
- Galaxy Player 5.0
- Galaxy Rugby Pro
- Galaxy S II
- Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch
- Galaxy S II Skyrocket
- Galaxy S III
- Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus
- Galaxy Tab 8.9
- Galaxy Tab
- Transform Ultra
Sedangkan produk Apple yang dituntut oleh Samsung adalah:
- iPhone 3G
- iPhone 4
- iPhone 4S
- iPhone 5
- iPad 2
- iPad 3
- iPad 4
- iPad mini
- iPod Touch (5th
- iPod Touch (4th generation)
- iPod Touch (3rd generation)
- MacBook Air
- MacBook Pro
- Mac mini
- iTunes (including iTunes Match)
- Apple TV (3rd
- Apple TV (1st generation)
saco-indonesia.com, Komisi Pemberantasaan Korupsi telah memanggil pemilik Java Medika, Yuni Astuti, terkait dalam penyidikan kas
saco-indonesia.com, Komisi Pemberantasaan Korupsi telah memanggil pemilik Java Medika, Yuni Astuti, terkait dalam penyidikan kasus proyek pengadaan alat kesehatan Banten. Dia juga akan diperiksa sebagai saksi bagi Gubernur Banten, Ratu Atut Chosiyah.
"Yang bersangkutan telah diperiksa sebagai saksi," kata Kepala Bagian Pemberitaan dan Informasi KPK, Priharsa Nugraha, saat diikonfirmasi, Jumat (7/2/2014).
Dalam proyek Alkes Ratu Atut disangka telah menerima gratifikasi dengan cara memeras. Korban pemerasan Ratu Atut diduga telah berasal dari pihak swasta dan pihak pegawai pemerintahan di Banten.
Selain Alkes Banten, Ratu Atut disangka telah memberi suap dalam penanganan sengketa Pemilihan Kepala Daerah Lebak kepada Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi, Akil Mochtar. Ratu Atut sekarang ditahan di Rumah Tahanan Pondok Bambu, Jakarta Timur.
Editor : Dian Sukmawati
From sea to shining sea, or at least from one side of the Hudson to the other, politicians you have barely heard of are being accused of wrongdoing. There were so many court proceedings involving public officials on Monday that it was hard to keep up.
In Newark, two underlings of Gov. Chris Christie were arraigned on charges that they were in on the truly deranged plot to block traffic leading onto the George Washington Bridge.
Ten miles away, in Lower Manhattan, Dean G. Skelos, the leader of the New York State Senate, and his son, Adam B. Skelos, were arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on accusations of far more conventional political larceny, involving a job with a sewer company for the son and commissions on title insurance and bond work.
The younger man managed to receive a 150 percent pay increase from the sewer company even though, as he said on tape, he “literally knew nothing about water or, you know, any of that stuff,” according to a criminal complaint the United States attorney’s office filed.
The success of Adam Skelos, 32, was attributed by prosecutors to his father’s influence as the leader of the Senate and as a potentate among state Republicans. The indictment can also be read as one of those unfailingly sad tales of a father who cannot stop indulging a grown son. The senator himself is not alleged to have profited from the schemes, except by being relieved of the burden of underwriting Adam.
The bridge traffic caper is its own species of crazy; what distinguishes the charges against the two Skeloses is the apparent absence of a survival instinct. It is one thing not to know anything about water or that stuff. More remarkable, if true, is the fact that the sewer machinations continued even after the former New York Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, was charged in January with taking bribes disguised as fees.
It was by then common gossip in political and news media circles that Senator Skelos, a Republican, the counterpart in the Senate to Mr. Silver, a Democrat, in the Assembly, could be next in line for the criminal dock. “Stay tuned,” the United States attorney, Preet Bharara said, leaving not much to the imagination.
Even though the cat had been unmistakably belled, Skelos father and son continued to talk about how to advance the interests of the sewer company, though the son did begin to use a burner cellphone, the kind people pay for in cash, with no traceable contracts.
That was indeed prudent, as prosecutors had been wiretapping the cellphones of both men. But it would seem that the burner was of limited value, because by then the prosecutors had managed to secure the help of a business executive who agreed to record calls with the Skeloses. It would further seem that the business executive was more attentive to the perils of pending investigations than the politician.
Through the end of the New York State budget negotiations in March, the hopes of the younger Skelos rested on his father’s ability to devise legislation that would benefit the sewer company. That did not pan out. But Senator Skelos did boast that he had haggled with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, in a successful effort to raise a $150 million allocation for Long Island to $550 million, for what the budget called “transformative economic development projects.” It included money for the kind of work done by the sewer company.
The lawyer for Adam Skelos said he was not guilty and would win in court. Senator Skelos issued a ringing declaration that he was unequivocally innocent.
THIS was also the approach taken in New Jersey by Bill Baroni, a man of great presence and eloquence who stopped outside the federal courthouse to note that he had taken risks as a Republican by bucking his party to support paid family leave, medical marijuana and marriage equality. “I would never risk my career, my job, my reputation for something like this,” Mr. Baroni said. “I am an innocent man.”
The lawyer for his co-defendant, Bridget Anne Kelly, the former deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, a Republican, said that she would strongly rebut the charges.
Perhaps they had nothing to do with the lane closings. But neither Mr. Baroni nor Ms. Kelly addressed the question of why they did not return repeated calls from the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., begging them to stop the traffic tie-ups, over three days.
That silence was a low moment. But perhaps New York hit bottom faster. Senator Skelos, the prosecutors charged, arranged to meet Long Island politicians at the wake of Wenjian Liu, a New York City police officer shot dead in December, to press for payments to the company employing his son.
Sometimes it seems as though for some people, the only thing to be ashamed of is shame itself.
WASHINGTON — During a training course on defending against knife attacks, a young Salt Lake City police officer asked a question: “How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using deadly force?”
Dennis Tueller, the instructor in that class more than three decades ago, decided to find out. In the fall of 1982, he performed a rudimentary series of tests and concluded that an armed attacker who bolted toward an officer could clear 21 feet in the time it took most officers to draw, aim and fire their weapon.
The next spring, Mr. Tueller published his findings in SWAT magazine and transformed police training in the United States. The “21-foot rule” became dogma. It has been taught in police academies around the country, accepted by courts and cited by officers to justify countless shootings, including recent episodes involving a homeless woodcarver in Seattle and a schizophrenic woman in San Francisco.
Now, amid the largest national debate over policing since the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, a small but vocal set of law enforcement officials are calling for a rethinking of the 21-foot rule and other axioms that have emphasized how to use force, not how to avoid it. Several big-city police departments are already re-examining when officers should chase people or draw their guns and when they should back away, wait or try to defuse the situation